GOP mute as Supreme Court tackles gay marriage

House Republican leaders had a uniform response to the Supreme Court’s decision to take up gay marriage: silence.

The high court’s decision last week to hear two cases relating to same-sex marriage puts that issue at the center of the national debate. And it does so at an exceedingly awkward time for Republicans, many of whom are trying to downplay or moderate their party’s views on social issues to chart a path back to electoral success.

Text Size

Battleground Poll: Gay marriage

SCOTUS ready, but is GOP?

Van Hollen, Snowe on both sides of debate

The timing is most uncomfortable for House Republicans, who are playing a key role in one of the cases the court agreed to hear.

In June, the House of Representatives told the Supreme Court that the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act “is an issue of great national importance” that urgently requires the justices’ attention. The 1996 law denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples.

But when the court agreed on Friday to hear one of the DOMA cases early next year, the Republican leadership had nothing to say about it.

Advocates on both sides of the issue said they’d seen no statements from Republican lawmakers about the court’s decision to take on DOMA and an even more provocative dispute regarding a ban California voters approved on same-sex marriage.

“I’m personally grateful to Speaker [John] Boehner for being willing to defend the law, but it’s clear GOP elites don’t want to talk about it and want to keep it as quiet as possible,” said Maggie Gallagher, a founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a fellow at the conservative American Principles Project. “That’s so obvious, I don’t see any point in pretending otherwise.”

Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council said he assumes from conversations he’s had with congressional aides that lawmakers are pleased the high court is taking up the issue. “But there’s just radio silence” publicly, McClusky said. “I was disappointed there wasn’t more from the Hill.”

And a top gay-rights activist, who asked not to be named because of his outreach to Republicans, said he hasn’t “heard or seen anything” from GOP leaders or members. “They’re really just hoping this issue will go away.”

POLITICO placed calls or emails to about 10 House members on Monday requesting comment on the court’s announcement. None surfaced for an interview.

The only substantive reply came from a House member Boehner kicked off two key committees last week, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.).

“It is a good thing that SCOTUS is considering the case because it will give the Supreme Court another opportunity to affirm the clear constitutionality of DOMA. Furthermore, it has the potential to overturn the mistaken lower court ruling deeming Proposition 8 unconstitutional,” Huelskamp said of California’s 2008 referendum banning gay marriage.

Spokesmen for Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) were among those who didn’t respond to requests for comment about the high court’s move.

Readers' Comments (280)

Obama's lack of leadership is again the problem. Does Obama oppose the will of the people that have voted to support marriage is only to be between one man and one woman and that civil union couples' rights should not be denied?

Conservatives and Republicans stand for states' rights and limiting the growth of federal government. On principle, they stand for reducing the power and reach of federal government. Marriage has historically been a legal matter handled by the states, but Republicans pushed to federalize marriage by pushing the unfairly discriminatory DOMA, a federal law. Now they want to go further; they want to mess with our Constitution, hardly a conservative desire. They want to revise our Constitution so that unfair discrimination is embedded in it. They worry there may be too many other things in our Constitution that might allow homosexuals to marry, like our Equal Protection Clause. So much for principled conservatism on this issue. The libertarian Republicans are closer to getting it right: orthodox Republicans should pay heed.

I think it's funny. The two pictured gay guys are out of the closet and kissing in public (or about to) and mute Boehner and Cantor are looking for a closet they can go into so they can freely talk and be their bigoted, homophobic selves.

The current court is slightly conservative. Once again, Roberts will be the key. The ruling on ObamaCare was a bust, but may have been a ploy to ease repeal. This issue, which has been defeated at the state level by popular vote in almost every instance, should not be rammed down the throat of the American people. Let each state decide, and those that want to marry a same sex partner can move to those states.

I dont care what people do. If that makes them happy so be it. Its their business not mine! And for all you people against it I respect your opinion of being against it. But in reality its spreading like wild fire and its notgoing away. So embrace it or accept it but you will have to deal with it eventually!!!!

As with so many issues, the GOP should have listened to Ron Paul on "gay marriage".

The answer isn't to endorse, or not endorse, gay marriage, the answer is to get the government, at all levels, out of the marriage business. Certainly out of the business of "defining" marriage but I would say they should even get out of the business of issuing a piece of paper which makes your marriage valid in their eyes. Marriage, vis a vis the state, is fundamentally like any other contract that two people enter into. Nobody suggests that we should need a state issued license to enter into a contract, and marriage, from a civil standpoint should be no different. Likewise, nobody would suggest that gays can be prohibited from entering into a binding contract of marriage. It's this whole need for a "license" from the state which causes the problem.

Once you have a situation where you need a piece of paper to be issued by the state to make your marriage legal, it becomes pretty hard to argue that gay couples can be denied that piece of paper. All of this crap about the "sanctity" of marriage, vis a vis the state, is rubbish. ( It's interesting that all of these state officials so worried about "traditional marriage" have made it so easy for those marriages to end in divorce,in an almost pain free way, as if your returning a pair of pants that don't fit).

The so called social conservatives, as always, confuse the role of the church with the role of the state. Nobody is suggesting, to may knowledge, that the catholic church, or any other, should be forced to preside over the marriages of gay couples. Marriage, or holy matrimony in catholic parlance, is an entirely separate process from marriage in the civil sense. we shouldn't conflate the two.

At the end of the day this is a just another issue where "conservatives" have lost their way. I'm always baffled by those claiming to favor "small government" but who have no problem with the government interfering with something as basic as recognizing, in a legal way, the relationships of folks are gay. 'm not sure why anybody wastes their time even arguing about this issue.

The so called social conservatives, as always, confuse the role of the church with the role of the state. Nobody is suggesting, to may knowledge, that the catholic church, or any other, should be forced to preside over the marriages of gay couples...

But MANY conservatives are claiming that precisely that will happen - falsely and stupidly.... presenting (or falling for) yet another straw man to validate an increasingly-indefensible (and increasingly unpopular) position.

Does Obama oppose the will of the people of Alabama who want to have separate but equal schools. They voted to retain those laws on their books in 2004 so obviously it is what the will of the people wanted. Shall we let the state do that?

You see, that's why we don't vote on the civil rights of citizens. Even in 2004 integration was opposed in Alabama. Who knows where else it would still be the law.

The GOP wants this to be a states right issue. They don't want it made into a federal case or a political issue. They are rather uncommitted about it.

The issue is NOT about can gays live together and have sex. Virtually no one (except possibly Muslims) oppose gay sex. Some may find it disgusting, but that is a personal choice between consenting adults in the opinion of virtually everyone.

The issue of gay marriage has EVERYTHING to do with the entire tradition of marriage, which is a tradition, steeped in religion, that has an over 6,000 year history. It is what heterosexuals who are committed to monogamy do to form a family for the purposes of raising children. That is a tradition that is worth preserving in all its time-honored precepts.

Gays can form unions and be committed and love each other and have all the sex they want. They can call it "bonding", or "enlightenment", or any other term they wish......except "marriage". You simply don't co-opt another groups traditions and try to claim it as yours in an effort to gain public acceptance for your practices. That is simply unseemly. That is like a thief robbing a passer-by, and calling it "charity" to himself since he is needy.

If those with a "different orientation" want to establish traditions for their group, fine. Go for it! No problem. I'll march in the street with you to get you the same legal rights for your traditions as those enjoying by married couples. However, if you only seek to steal my traditions, and to justify it as a "civil right", you will meet with opposition from me because I am proud of my traditions.

The GOP want to keep silent about their anti-gay stance, just as they have been silent on their anti-Hispanic, anti-black, anti-women, anti-voter, anti-science, anti-environment, anti-poor and anti-elderly positions.

Tehe, I'm sorry but I don't buy into the bunk about "tradition" and how allowing gays to call their relationship a "marriage", vis a vis the state, which is what we are talking about, somehow will destroy the institution. First, I'm not sure what "tradition" exists in obtaining a piece of paper from the state that says, in their eyes, your relationship is called a marriage, as opposed to calling it something else. If you are talking about tradition in the sense of holy matrimony before the catholic church then I would agree with you and I don't think there's bee any serious argument that the church must marry gay couples in the eyes of God. but, tradition wrapped up in a piece of paper issued by some state level functionary? That I don't buy. Second, all of this talk about marriage as a sacred tradition wrings pretty hollow in a society with our divorce rates. I doubt that gays could do very much to further sully the reputation of the institution that straights haven't already done. I'm in favor of polygamy to- if a guy wants multiple wives, it doesn't affect me. I think we'd all be better off if we just operated with that philosophy- if it doesn't harm me, my family, or my property, I don't worry about and certainly don't think we need laws to regulate it.

tehe; "Gays can form unions and be committed and love each other and have all the sex they want. They can call it "bonding", or "enlightenment", or any other term they wish......except "marriage". You simply don't co-opt another groups traditions and try to claim it as yours in an effort to gain public acceptance for your practices. That is simply unseemly. That is like a thief robbing a passer-by, and calling it "charity" to himself since he is needy.

You've pretty much said it all right here.

I disagree with you about marriage being steeped in religion. In fact, marriage originated as a moral code useful for survival of society and not as a religious practice. Marriage orignially provided for a family unit in which responsibility for survival actions could be shared and this included things like procreation, child rearing, and food production. Later on, marriage provided for clear lines of inheritance for property and status. None of this had anything to do with religion. That isn't to say that religion, as it developed, didn't attach special meaning to marriage, but marriage was a fact *before* religion, not after.

It is the *need* for acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that drives gays to want to co-opt "marriage" instead of being fully satisfied with civil unions.

Civil unions can provide *every* *single* *secular* attribute that marriage does. But civil unions do not make gays feel that their lifestyle is accepted as a "normal" lifestyle.

Homosexuality will *never* be "normal". It will ALWAYS be abnormal. The word "marriage" will never change that.

Homosexuals are chasing a butterfly that they will never, ever be able to catch. They will *always* feel outside of normal society because they *are* outside of normal society. It's a sad, inconvenient truth for gays to accept but it is the truth nonetheless.

It's like the short guys. They either mature and accept themselves as being outside the societal norm or they fight it every single day. The problem is that no amount of fighting it will make them any taller, it will just make them more and more bitter.

That's the problem with most gays today -- they simply cannot accept themselves as being outside the societal norm and so they fight every single day to try and redefine what the societal "norm" is. The problem is that no amount of fighting is going to change what the societal norm is. The purple flower in the midst of a field of yellow flowers will never turn the yellow flowers purple no matter how hard it tries!

Because less than 10 years ago Republican conservatives were arguing that gay sex should remain illegal, and that states should be allowed to arrest gay people for having sex.

It was the law of the land that gay people could be arrested for having sex, and Republican conservatives staunchly defended these laws all the way to the Supreme Court.

There, by a 6 to 3 decision – it was decided that it is unconstitutional to burst into the private bedrooms of gay people and arrest them for making love in the privacy of their own homes.

“The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Previously, the SC had ruled that it was perfectly legal to arrest gay people of having gay sex. But, that decision was overturned, something the SC rarely does.

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

The decision went further to say this:

“This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

All this was written by a current member of the court – Justice Kennedy.

He’ll be the 5th vote to overturn the bans on gay marriage, and I think that Justice Roberts will join him.

Gay marriage bans?

It’s finished.

With conservatives opposing this expansion of human rights every step of the way.